Journals, referees, and gatekeepers in the dispute over Little Albert, 2009-2014.

In this article, I examine the rise and fall of recent claims about the identity of John B. Watson and Rosalie Rayner's subject "Albert B." (Watson & Rayner, 1920). Using medical records from 1919 to 1920 and close readings of published work, I argue that articles by Beck, Fridlund, and colleagues (Beck, Levinson, & Irons, 2009; Fridlund, Beck, Goldie, & Irons, 2012) were based on questionable logic and selective reporting of data. Using unpublished correspondence, media coverage, and editorial exchanges, I offer a backstage look at the process by which claims about Albert's identity were published and then contradicted by new research. In publicizing both sides of this controversy, textbook authors and journalists played a more constructive role than critics of popularization might expect. Rather than a simple case of truth winning out over falsehood, this seems to have been a clash of rhetorical styles and sources of authority. That clash complicated the process of peer review, which became a negotiation over conflicting criteria from different disciplines. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).